Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-02-11
Supreme Court, per Mr. Justice Strong,

khlu
"Is, then, property, which consists in the
promise Of state, or Of a municipality OF a
State, beyond the reach Of taxationf We do
not afIirm that II is State may undoubtedly
tax any Of It's creditors within its Jurisdiction
for the debt due 20 him, and regulate the
amount Of the tax by the rate Of interest the
debt benrs. n its promise remains unto lchcd.
tax thus laid impalrs no obligation assumed.
II leaves the contract untouched"
This language OF the Supreme Court
is Of no doubtful import, nor can it be
strained from its one plain meaning.
Certainly, then, it cannot be success
fully contended that in either Murray
as. Charleston or Hartman us. green
hOU it was held that the State cannot
put tax on her obligations-either a
direct tax or an indirect tax by taxing
the business of selling those obligations
And it is safe TO predict that no such
decision can or will ever be made, ex-
ccpt in instances where the State at
tempts to impose tax on property
beyond her jurisdictional limits, or
where the State has expressly or i'm
pliedly contracted not TO impose such q
tax, because it is a settled doctrine that
the power of taxation, being vast in its
character and searching in it's extent,
embraces necessarily all subjects with
in the jurisdictiOnal limits of the State
and that these subjects of taxation are
persons, property, and business. As
applied to them the power OF taxation
may be exercised in variety of ways,
and may touch property in every shape
and business IN the almost infinite
variety of forms in which it is con
ducted-in professions, in commerce,
in manufacture, and in transportation.
And unless restrained by some pro-
vision of the Federal Constitution
the power of the State-as to the mede,
form, and extent of taxation is I'M
limited where the subjects to which it
applies are within its jurisdiction. See
Cterci0nd RdirOnd Company rs.
Pennsylvania, - Wall, 320.
WHERE TIE HUsTISGs COURT ERRED.
In word, then, the power of taxa
ton is a part of the Legislative SOW
ereienty of the State. IT existed when
the bonds and coupons were issued;
they having. in fact, been issued sub
ject to this power of taxation,
which was not in any way released
or surrendered by their issuance, and
being the Ter tcmpOris, is part and par
eel of the bond and coupon contract
II this power of taxation was not ex-
prcssly reserved, it matters not, for it
need not be reserved it exists and re-
mains always, unless yielded up. See
Cooley on Taxation, 81, Note 2.
Then, what though the tax imposed
on the business of selling the coupons
be tax on the coupons themselves
The State is entitled to tax all persons,
property, and business within its juris-
diction. The business is done or pro-
posed to be done here, within the juris-
diction Of the state; and that business
is a legitimate subject of taxation.
How, then, can it be said that the
statute of 1SS3-S4, which imposes q
tax on the doing of the business of sell
ing the coupons, is beyond the limits Of
the constitutional legislative powers OF
the State and void?
We have carefully examined all the
authorities cited in support of the posi-
tons contended for 10y the defendant in
error-as well those cited by his coun-
sci as those cited 10y the learned Judge
of the Hastings Court in his printed
opinion, reported in the virginia Lar
JOugn0i, 1884, page 49i-and We
can find nothing in them to sns-
tain the decision of the court
below, which decision has for its
sole foundation the unwarranted
and erroneous assumption that the state
is without power to lax the coupons.
True it is that these authorities do
establish the proposition that tax on
the business of selling an article is tax
on the article itself; and that, therefore
a tax imposed on the sale of a nan
'ar0blc article is unconstitutional and
void. But that proposition is not de
MED. In fact, it is a concession i'll this
opinion, ahd is perfectly consistent
with the views herein presented and
with the conclusion arrived at.
For these reasons this court is OF
opinion that the statute Of 1SS3-'S4,
under which the Indictment in this case
was found, is constitutional and valid,
and that the judgment Of the Hastings
Court guashing that Indictment is erro-
neous, and must be reversed and an
nulled, and the case remanded to said
court for further proceedings i'll con
formity with the law and the views
herein expressed.
IndnInnnt rnvnrsnl